Circumcision

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Stormwalker
its perfectly normal for Jews, Muslims and many Catholics, to be routinely circumcised. It’s not big in the C of E to be sure.
I think it’s wrong to perform unnecessary medical procedures on children, I think it’s wrong to mutilate a childes sexual organs for no real reason. Do what you like to your self at 16 if you wish, just don’t do it to a child who has know choice in the matter
Would you be so happy if for example we had a cultural bent to remove inner labia as a matter of course?
I didn’t make myself clear then, by “this” I was talking about circumcision, not swinging.

Riiight I'm with you on the "this" bit now! lol

Ok, I'm not saying that it's right or wrong. I just believe - having studied anthropology at degree level - we have no right to say what is wrong or right within other cultures/ religions/ societies/ whatever.
For example, many so called "primitive" societies allow their children to share their beds or breastfeed until 5 years old or more. This si pretty much frowned upon here but it doesn't make it wrong, does it?
What about the practices of bandaging feet or wearing rings to stretch the neck? Some even encourage sexual activity at a very early age - we wouldn't do that, our kids should be innocent - but they do - is it wrong????
Personally I think female circumcision is disgusting but I am not going to condemn a culture that has traditions, beliefs and customs dating back hundreds or thousands of years just 'cos I don't like it.

14 Mar 2007

Quote by westerross
Good question this.
Many religious beliefs are rooted in practical public health or hygeine reasons.
Eating easily perishible meats in hot middle eastern countries - I think, originated to avoid widespread food poisoning.
I also think that circumcision was promulgated to avoid hygeine problems and this became part of a religion.
It is true that the health rationale for this is no longer valid - and so I would say that it is no longer valid on religious grounds. Unfortunately some people's blind adherence to religious practices is what discredits some religions.
So I say no - it is not right.
.

:thumbup:
Blimey..............I agree with choon again :shock:

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Marya_Northeast
Personally I think female circumcision is disgusting but I am not going to condemn a culture that has traditions, beliefs and customs dating back hundreds or thousands of years just 'cos I don't like it.

If this was in reference to my post, then I am glad I am one voice in the uneducated who feels able to express her abhorrence of a practice as opposed to a culture without being misunderstood.

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Marya_Northeast
Why shouldn't people be allowed to follow the traditions and customs of their culture?
Just because our society does not think it is right, does not make it wrong.
The western world do plenty that other cultures would balk at.
Live and let live.

Thats a bit of a contradiction there, if you think something isn't right then surely it IS wrong, after all you said we should follow our traditions? does this also include gay relationships while your going on about following tradition? or is it ok to make certain exceptions?
My view is i think its wrong, unless its purely based on health reasons and nothing else, i also believe arranged marriages are wrong as well as many other things, and i'll even go as far as saying religion itself shouldn't be forced on anyone until old enough to make there own informed decision, the problem is we now live in a mixed culture here in the uk and everyone brings there own traditions and religions with them and while i dont see a major problem in that itself its getting to the stage we won't be able to raise a union jack for fear of critisism.

14 Mar 2007

Quote by BiWelshMinx

Personally I think female circumcision is disgusting but I am not going to condemn a culture that has traditions, beliefs and customs dating back hundreds or thousands of years just 'cos I don't like it.

If this was in reference to my post, then I am glad I am one voice in the uneducated who feels able to express her abhorrence of a practice as opposed to a culture without being misunderstood.
dont worry jen, some of us appreciate all the effort you put into things, you gorgeous thing you silly

xxx

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Stormwalker
They are not mutilated anymore than women with breast implants etc ..
Women with implants have made a choice. Men circumcised for medical reasons or for religious or cultural reasons as adults have a choice, children don’t. Forget the rest, they are clearly well covered by law as it stands. My question is regarding children only and whether it is acceptable to perform such a procedure on someone who has no choice at all in the matter.
Ok poor choice of example but I never was any good at arguing my corner and always came off feeling people think I am an aweful person with terrible beliefs.
I much prefer a circumcised man to an uncircumcised man for giving oral sex. A lot of men taste aweful and I've even found bits :shock: around the glans :eeek: yes I know its to do with personal hygiene but it goes to show the truth about men having icky things lurking behind that foreskin.
Unpleasant I know but hardly worth undertaking mass cultural mutilation for is it?
As I say I don't regard it as mutilation if its done under proper medical conditions and since it prevents cervical cancer in women. A bit of skin not really necessary seems a small sacrifice to me for the health and extended life of the women in the population. Remember I am coming from a health stance here not a cultural one.
The men I have been with don't have any problems with not having foreskin and they enjoy sex just as much as any other man. So if its healthier whats the problem.
No problem at all if its consensual, which it is not.

The operation is much easier and less traumatic to the young child where as in an adult male its quite an unpleasant procedure.
Certainly at 8 days old no one is going to remember the operation anyway.
Dose that make it ok then, and what about at ten or thirteen without any anaesthetic, what about female circumcision?
As I said before .. I am not advocating doing it without anaesthetic and female circumcision is done for cultural purposes not health reasons so I would not agree to female circumcision.
And I do minor self operations when I get things like verucaes and warts etc .. yep I put TCP on and dig them out with a pair of scissors. Ask Phoenix he has seen me do it. Thats without anaesthetic.
DD

BTW as i keep forgetting to post lots of neutral emoticons so folks know I’m not getting all nasty with it. lol

As I said before I am fine with it all. Had to go last night cause of family but back for more of the fray this morning. Good debate innit. Its interested that a lot of the objections are coming from men
DD

14 Mar 2007

Quote by devondelight
So get chopping boys ... its healthier for us swingers
DD

Do swingers actually go bareback these days?

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Liaisons
So get chopping boys ... its healthier for us swingers
DD

Do swingers actually go bareback these days?
Actually that comment was a bit tongue in cheek but now I have been painted as the villian of the day for it although I have stated my real reasons for advocating male circumcision. I do admit the consent thing is an arguement. As for your question read the recent thread about barebacking .. it makes interesting reading.
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/86748.html?highlight=bareback
DD

14 Mar 2007

Thank you for that thread DD, I will read it later.
In your post in this thread where there is text in red and black I cannot tell which parts are your writings!
A reason given in this thread was the subject of hygiene.
I'm sure everyone at one stage have come across someone who never learnt to clean their teeth or wash between their toes. Do we advocate the mass removal of teeth and the amputation of toes just because a small minorty have poor personal hygiene?
I prefer to be left with the choice to simply distance myself from people who never learnt to keep themsleves clean. :shock: wink

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Drewxcore

Personally I think female circumcision is disgusting but I am not going to condemn a culture that has traditions, beliefs and customs dating back hundreds or thousands of years just 'cos I don't like it.

If this was in reference to my post, then I am glad I am one voice in the uneducated who feels able to express her abhorrence of a practice as opposed to a culture without being misunderstood.
dont worry jen, some of us appreciate all the effort you put into things, you gorgeous thing you silly

xxx
Errr .... excuse me, before all this gets too personal, can I just point out I wasn't actually referring to anyonebut the original post and the ones Stormy made to me direct, actually! rolleyes

Can you see how things get really misconstrued on here and get people's back up? Or is it ok since it's you and my opinion doesn't matter???
Thanks guys. I'll stay well away from this now. Nowt changes on here, does it. :roll:

14 Mar 2007

Marya, don't fret so, as the intact said to the circumcised, you are a cut above the rest wink

14 Mar 2007

Surely if circumcision is done purely for hygiene then it has no purpose.
You either have a dirty dick or you don't dunno

Exactly the same as for a female. You can get muck and bullets in the folds of a foo-foo, you either wash it, or you don't :dunno:

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Dawnie
Surely if circumcision is done purely for hygiene then it has no purpose.
You either have a dirty dick or you don't
Exactly the same as for a female. You can get muck and bullets in the folds of a foo-foo, you either wash it, or you don't :dunno:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

14 Mar 2007

I refuse to get into the religious aspect of this debate (never discuss religion or politics confused

).
However, as an "un-cut" man I take exception to the knee-jerk reaction which says "He's got a foreskin ergo he's dirty/infected/spreads cancer" etc! mad

None of those things are exclusive to men with foreskins. I've known a number of women who have hygene issues of the nether regions. There's nothing worse than having to pause during oral sex to spit out pieces of toilet tissue - or other foreign matter! :shock:
I am scrupulously clean, and the fact that I have a foreskin makes me even more so! My son is also un-cut and he's been brought up to understand what needs to be done to ensure his health and wellbeing.
Cleanliness, like keeping the foreskin, is a life choice.
I'm getting dizzy up on this soapbox.... think I'll get down now! :-(

14 Mar 2007

As I say I don't regard it as mutilation if its done under proper medical conditions and since it prevents cervical cancer in women. A bit of skin not really necessary seems a small sacrifice to me for the health and extended life of the women in the population. Remember I am coming from a health stance here not a cultural one.
I'm sorry but thats a bit like saying if you chop a mans willy off it will prevent and make the world a safer place for women dunno

The operation is much easier and less traumatic to the young child where as in an adult male its quite an unpleasant procedure.
The operation may be easier for who : and how do we know how traumatic it is for the child :?: one thing is for sure. It bluddy hurts! the only difference is that the child can't tell us so will cry instead.
Certainly at 8 days old no one is going to remember the operation anyway.
Maybe not but it does'nt make it fair and right in my opinion (sp)
It's not often I get really on one about something but reading through this thread it seems alot of people are missing an important point about A/ Choice (that of the child) and B/ The infliction of pain on another human being.
Love
Fire xx
PS I don't know who's quotes the above belong to I have just used them to try and get my point across, purely for discussion purposes not for any personal slight.

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Marya_Northeast

Personally I think female circumcision is disgusting but I am not going to condemn a culture that has traditions, beliefs and customs dating back hundreds or thousands of years just 'cos I don't like it.

If this was in reference to my post, then I am glad I am one voice in the uneducated who feels able to express her abhorrence of a practice as opposed to a culture without being misunderstood.
dont worry jen, some of us appreciate all the effort you put into things, you gorgeous thing you silly

xxx
Errr .... excuse me, before all this gets too personal, can I just point out I wasn't actually referring to anyonebut the original post and the ones Stormy made to me direct, actually! rolleyes

Can you see how things get really misconstrued on here and get people's back up? Or is it ok since it's you and my opinion doesn't matter???
Thanks guys. I'll stay well away from this now. Nowt changes on here, does it. :roll:
lol i wasnt really saying anything about you, i just felt like saying nice to jen/ biwelshminx

14 Mar 2007

Drew I don't know who you think Jen is but can I politely suggest that you don't use a name you believe to be a real name on a public forum. Not unless you have been told it is ok.
Then you might want to get the right person matched with the right name rolleyes

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Dawnie
Drew I don't know who you think Jen is but can I politely suggest that you don't use a name you believe to be a real name on a public forum. Not unless you have been told it is ok.
Then you might want to get the right person matched with the right name

its not her real name, its what i call her when we talk :P

14 Mar 2007

ARGH
i had a very long winded reply all typed up and the damn thing timed out! :doh: HMPH I'm sulking now :fuckinghell:
Circumcision is one of those things i can be persuaded to get on my soap box for!
Mr swin's whole male side of the family have been cut - all apart from him, he escaped, he was born abroad and it was only done for medical or strict religious reasons there.
so when our son was born it became an inevitable discussion. my responce was , NO WAY, no chance, over my dead body and so on.
i have no objection to circumcision for for medical reasons, in the same way i do not object to any medical procedure if it is necessary.
However there are reasons men are born with foreskins, they actually HELP to keep the glans clean, at the correct ph and temperature, and along with the specialised sebum (called smegma - nice name lol

) produced to keep the area clean special glands in the foreskin produce antiviral and antibacterial enzymes and proteins to help form a natural defence against infections (similar proteins are also found in breastmilk - and we all know how much breastfeeding is advocated for the very same reasons).
In 1989 a report concluded that circumcision reduces the risks of urinary tract infections, cervical cancer in women and sexually transmitted diseases. Many doctors have since dismissed these findings. Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized that there are no medical benefits to justify circumcision - unless due to a deformity of the penis/foreskin itsself.
The foreskin accounts for a massive amount of erogenous tissue, and as early paitining in egypt have shown (15000 yrs old) circumcision was done as a form of ritualised sacrafice, this is where the common though for corcumcision is thought to derive. You dont sacrafice something that isnt important or worth sacraficing!
so all in all i do see this as genital mutilation, it is done in most cases without pain relief and it bloody hurts - you can google videos of child circumcision shown on websites both for and against - but the main feeling you get from the baby is that it bloody hurts like hell!
i'm not going to give my views on this being done as a religious thing as i dont think this is the time or place, we all make our own decisions about how we bring up our children and i am not qualified to condemn anyones beliefs.
anyway off my soapbox - this isnt quite the nice well written piece i had originally composed but it gets my thoughts accross.
sal xx

14 Mar 2007

Unless there is an undisputable medical reason for it, then hell no- it should not be done.
But I have exactly the same views when I see a 6 month old baby having their ears pierced in a certain high street accessory store. Not only because of the initial pain, but as someone who is allergic to nickel I know just how much it can hurt when it all goes wrong.

14 Mar 2007

So the final concensus on here is that to prevent a child some physical pain we let women die of cervical cancer. I wasn't only advocating personal hygiene I was talking about women dying of cancer ok... as I said I am not good at getting my point over. I'm not saying every man is a carrier of cancer but that the research says the chances are greater for women to get cervical cancer if they have sex with men who have not been circumcised than with those who have.
I'm sorry you all think I'm an axe wealding monster cutting men's dicks off ... and what has got to do with it. Its emotional add ons like that which spoil the discussion. I am going to stop now cause people obviously are not listening seriously to my point of view and just want to say I'm wicked in my opinion. I must say I thought this place was about free speech but obviously its not.
Yes I am upset .. I have tried to say what I think but people have got so upset about it I fear saying anything again on here. Its the first time I have said anything seriously and I feel like I'm to be shot at dawn.
If you all want to think I am wrong fine, thats your choice but please don't stomp on me as you kick me to the ground for thinking differently to you.
DD

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Liaisons
Thank you for that thread DD, I will read it later.
A reason given in this thread was the subject of hygiene.
I'm sure everyone at one stage have come across someone who never learnt to clean their teeth or wash between their toes. Do we advocate the mass removal of teeth and the amputation of toes just because a small minorty have poor personal hygiene?
I prefer to be left with the choice to simply distance myself from people who never learnt to keep themsleves clean. :shock:

Now here you misread my post .. I said 'I much prefer a circumcised man to an uncircumcised man for giving oral sex. A lot of men taste aweful and I've even found bits around the glans yes I know its to do with personal hygiene but it goes to show the truth about men having icky things lurking behind that foreskin.
What I meant was sticky .. yucky dicks is a topic of personal hygiene not a reason to advocate circumcision
but it shows that some men with poor personal hygiene are possibly prime candidates for growing germs in their foreskin and then passing it on to women where as a man without foreskin is less likely to have germs on his dick even if his personal hygiene is less than perfect.
The jump to bad teeth extractions and toe amputations is irrelevant to this topic and is just sensationalising it to make me appear unreasonable when I was talking about something that could kill women. I've never heard of died by exposure to halitosis yet. But I have heard of women dying of cervical cancer possibly give to them by their sexual partners cause of poor personal hygiene.
DD

14 Mar 2007

Quote by winchwench
Unless there is an undisputable medical reason for it, then hell no- it should not be done.
But I have exactly the same views when I see a 6 month old baby having their ears pierced in a certain high street accessory store. Not only because of the initial pain, but as someone who is allergic to nickel I know just how much it can hurt when it all goes wrong.

Yes babies having ear piercing I agree with is wrong. But again that won't kill a woman of cervical cancer if her child's ears are not pierced.
Where as men with foreskins can infect women and that can lead to disease and death.
Thats the difference .. earrings are cosmetic
DD

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Swindonnewbies
ARGH
i had a very long winded reply all typed up and the damn thing timed out! :doh: HMPH I'm sulking now :fuckinghell:
Circumcision is one of those things i can be persuaded to get on my soap box for!
Mr swin's whole male side of the family have been cut - all apart from him, he escaped, he was born abroad and it was only done for medical or strict religious reasons there.
so when our son was born it became an inevitable discussion. my responce was , NO WAY, no chance, over my dead body and so on.
i have no objection to circumcision for for medical reasons, in the same way i do not object to any medical procedure if it is necessary.
However there are reasons men are born with foreskins, they actually HELP to keep the glans clean, at the correct ph and temperature, and along with the specialised sebum (called smegma - nice name ) produced to keep the area clean special glands in the foreskin produce antiviral and antibacterial enzymes and proteins to help form a natural defence against infections (similar proteins are also found in breastmilk - and we all know how much breastfeeding is advocated for the very same reasons).
In 1989 a report concluded that circumcision reduces the risks of urinary tract infections, cervical cancer in women and sexually transmitted diseases. Many doctors have since dismissed these findings. Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized that there are no medical benefits to justify circumcision - unless due to a deformity of the penis/foreskin itsself.
The foreskin accounts for a massive amount of erogenous tissue, and as early paitining in egypt have shown (15000 yrs old) circumcision was done as a form of ritualised sacrafice, this is where the common though for corcumcision is thought to derive. You dont sacrafice something that isnt important or worth sacraficing!
so all in all i do see this as genital mutilation, it is done in most cases without pain relief and it bloody hurts - you can google videos of child circumcision shown on websites both for and against - but the main feeling you get from the baby is that it bloody hurts like hell!
i'm not going to give my views on this being done as a religious thing as i dont think this is the time or place, we all make our own decisions about how we bring up our children and i am not qualified to condemn anyones beliefs.
anyway off my soapbox - this isnt quite the nice well written piece i had originally composed but it gets my thoughts accross.
sal xx

Now this is a reasoned argument .. thank you for this information, as I have never read any reports saying circumcision was not beneficial. Perhaps I am going on old information. If I am then I withdraw all I have said ... but I was under the impression that medical science believed the reason the jewish women had virtually no cervical cancer was because of male circumcision. Its what I was taught when I trained for my NNEB certificate and I have held to that as true since I have never heard anyone say any different till today. I will have to go and read what the report you mention stated as I have never seen it before. Thank you for replying to my post with a rational and knowledgeable argument.
DD

14 Mar 2007

Quote by Swindonnewbies
ARGH
However there are reasons men are born with foreskins, they actually HELP to keep the glans clean, at the correct ph and temperature, and along with the specialised sebum (called smegma - nice name ) produced to keep the area clean special glands in the foreskin produce antiviral and antibacterial enzymes and proteins to help form a natural defence against infections (similar proteins are also found in breastmilk - and we all know how much breastfeeding is advocated for the very same reasons).

Smegma is the natural lubricant of the foreskin.
Natural oils are secreted by Tyson's Glands under the rim of the glans and from the inner surface of the foreskin. These are necessary to prevent the foreskin from sticking to the glans and to allow it to retract freely. The oils are produced constantly and are thus replaced very quickly after washing.
Smegma consists of surplus oil, dead skin cells, stale urine, stale semen and miscellaneous dirt which have collected under the foreskin. Smegma is a 'waste product' and serves no useful purpose. If not cleaned away regularly it becomes hard and smelly. It is also a breeding ground for bacteria, which can lead to balanitis. Smegma has also been implicated in penile cancer. ( )

Quote by Swindonnewbies
In 1989 a report concluded that circumcision reduces the risks of urinary tract infections, cervical cancer in women and sexually transmitted diseases. Many doctors have since dismissed these findings. Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recognized that there are no medical benefits to justify circumcision - unless due to a deformity of the penis/foreskin itsself.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has come out against infant circumcision.
This is a gross misinterpretation of the most recent statement of the Academy's Task Force on Infant Circumcision. Their statement made it clear that there are significant proven benefits from neo-natal circumcision. They also recognised that there are some risks (as with any surgical procedure) and that the net benefits did not warrant making routine infant circumcision a matter of public policy (in the way that immunisation is).
In no way did they condemn infant circumcision. They said it was a matter for the parents to decide, taking into account
( not only the medical benefits and risks but also religious and cultural factors. )

Quote by Swindonnewbies
it is done in most cases without pain relief and it bloody hurts - you can google videos of child circumcision shown on websites both for and against - but the main feeling you get from the baby is that it bloody hurts like hell!

Not in this country every child who goes for circumcision in an NHS hospital are all given a penile block. Most of the time when children are crying is down to the anesthesia,

14 Mar 2007

Quote by devondelight
So the final concensus on here is that to prevent a child some physical pain we let women die of cervical cancer. I wasn't only advocating personal hygiene I was talking about women dying of cancer ok... as I said I am not good at getting my point over. I'm not saying every man is a carrier of cancer but that the research says the chances are greater for women to get cervical cancer if they have sex with men who have not been circumcised than with those who have.
DD

The research also states that there is no difference in the circumcised and un-circumcised men if they have had more than 6 different sexual partners.
Your point earlier, with reference to low cervical cancer from penile human papillomavirus infection within the jewish community i dont feel is valid.
My reason for this is, as stated above, the findings of the research were not valid if you had more than six sexual partners. You will find that if a couple have very strong religious beliefs and follow their faith to the letter, they would be virgins on marriage and be monogamous - therefore, the virus would not exist in that community.
There are many forms of cervical cancer, this is just but one form and mass circumcision will not stop cervical cancer or women dying from it.

14 Mar 2007

Erm... just a thought, but surely cervical cancer might only be a risk if you're not practising safe sex? dunno

14 Mar 2007

Quote by cu3b4ll
Erm... just a thought, but surely cervical cancer might only be a risk if you're not practising safe sex?

For the form of cervical cancer being discussed, HPV, yes, safer sex with a condom would prevent the spread. It would not eradicate cervical cancer, as there are many other strains.

14 Mar 2007

Quote by devondelight
Unless there is an undisputable medical reason for it, then hell no- it should not be done.
But I have exactly the same views when I see a 6 month old baby having their ears pierced in a certain high street accessory store. Not only because of the initial pain, but as someone who is allergic to nickel I know just how much it can hurt when it all goes wrong.

Yes babies having ear piercing I agree with is wrong. But again that won't kill a woman of cervical cancer if her child's ears are not pierced.
Where as men with foreskins can infect women and that can lead to disease and death.
Thats the difference .. earrings are cosmetic
DD
I've had cervical cancer.
I don't think for one moment that any guy should have any bit of his anatomy removed for my benefit.
And would gay guy's get it sewn back on?

14 Mar 2007

Quote by winchwench
Unless there is an undisputable medical reason for it, then hell no- it should not be done.
But I have exactly the same views when I see a 6 month old baby having their ears pierced in a certain high street accessory store. Not only because of the initial pain, but as someone who is allergic to nickel I know just how much it can hurt when it all goes wrong.

Yes babies having ear piercing I agree with is wrong. But again that won't kill a woman of cervical cancer if her child's ears are not pierced.
Where as men with foreskins can infect women and that can lead to disease and death.
Thats the difference .. earrings are cosmetic
DD
I've had cervical cancer.
I don't think for one moment that any guy should have any bit of his anatomy removed for my benefit.
And would gay guy's get it sewn back on?
why would gay guys get it sewn back on?